476 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

DavidHurricane, on 28 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

They can bring multiple dropships. I am not applying real-world limits, but many games limit you on tonnage, or have no limit (as far as I have played).

That is because they are nerds with no life. If they want to do that, they are playing fairly. Cause you had the option, and have the option. You denied that option. It's not like they limit certain players playing time, or who can pay for C-Bills.

I really can't express how wrong that is.

The bottom line is if they try to make metagame c-bill costs limit drops, the team with the most cash to burn would always have the massive advantage and that's a very bad idea. Now if they make the c-bill cost of 'mechs act as a BV style modifier (max c-bills per team) or otherwise balance it on similar factors, it'll hopefully mean far more even (and thus interesting) matches.

Notably this still leaves a reason to buy expensive 'mechs; if you want to take, say, 8 mediums 2 lights and 2 top-tier Assaults versus 6 mediums, 2 lights and 4 heavies balanced by a BV system with the Assaults costing the most to own/maintain, it'll still even out to be a fair fight team wise. I realize they plan to sell c-bills to upgrade 'mechs and that's fine as long as a team without it can match the overall capabilities.

[MysTicRAikO]

I am for the Battle Value idea. All tons are NOT created equal.

[Belisarius1]

RedDragon, on 30 April 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

Why would that be obvious? In a world like that of BT, having different sized mechbays would be a logistical nightmare. In 3025 there are few enough dropships at all and if you had to keep track of which ship is assigned to which unit just so they can transport all their mechs would be nigh to impossible. It has good reasons that dropships can carry mechs of any weight class and are only limited by the number of them.

Sorry, I'm not talking about weight per bay, I'm talking about total.

Anything that flies is limited by the total cargo weight it can lift; that much is obvious. 'Mechs also have to fit in a finite number of bays, that's obvious too. The point was that people spent like half a page arguing about whether weight or space was a more realistic limit. The answer is both.

What MWO actually uses is a totally different story, of course.

DavidHurricane, on 28 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

That is because they are nerds with no life. If they want to do that, they are playing fairly. Cause you had the option, and have the option. You denied that option. It's not like they limit certain players playing time, or who can pay for C-Bills.

I've now tried to type a response to this several times, and I'm pretty much giving up. It's like you're saying the sky is green.

You might be okay with being beaten over and over by ten year olds with infinite time and adults with maxed-out credit cards, but you'll find most players aren't.

Edited by Belisarius†, 30 April 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[Outlaw2]

DavidHurricane, on 28 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

That is because they are nerds with no life.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 30 April 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Manly men get a job and spend their paychecks on their assault mechs. Manly men take a second job for their clan tech! Silly nerds spending hours a week playing the game to get stuff!

If you'll excuse me, I'll be grinding my 20 hours outside!

[990Dreams]

Last post in this topic:

You can buy or spend your time earning things on MWO, or not. You have a free will, so do others. Others may choose to spend their time/money on MWO. I won't. Your choices. But in every other good game, you are limited buy the slots and, in some games, the tonnage. I haven't played ONE game where you are limited buy the value. Your C-Bills are the only currency related issue, and they only limit you on what you can put on a mech. Bye-Bye!

EDIT: Its canon. Thats it. No game, or anything says that and overlord can carry up to 90,000,000 dollars in C-Bills. It says they can carry 36 mechs.

Kudzu, on 28 April 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

Again, each mech bay is designed to hold up to a 100 ton mech. You have different sized dropships for different reasons, including maintaince costs. It's a lot cheaper to maintain a Union than an Overlord for example.

Here's some more data for you:
Cargo Hauler - Due to the availability of the design and spare parts, the Union has proven a popular choice for merchants and traders, who strip out all twelve 'Mech cubicles to free up space for 1,500 tons of cargo.

A dozen Atlas' would weigh 1200 tons.

Exactly. You can carry X number of tons in each bay/slot, and X number of mechs total. Its canon

Edited by DavidHurricane, 01 May 2012 - 11:50 AM.

[Belisarius1]

Buy.

[Outlaw2]

DavidHurricane, on 01 May 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

Last post in this topic:

You can buy or spend your time earning things on MWO, or not. You have a free will, so do others. Others may choose to spend their time/money on MWO. I won't. Your choices. But in every other good game, you are limited buy the slots and, in some games, the tonnage. I haven't played ONE game where you are limited buy the value. Your C-Bills are the only currency related issue, and they only limit you on what you can put on a mech. Bye-Bye!

I'm sure you won't respond, but I assume your point is since "every other good game" hasn't done something, any game that does must be bad. That must be why there are so many game sequels and clones out there.

[990Dreams]

=Outlaw=, on 01 May 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

I'm sure you won't respond, but I assume your point is since "every other good game" hasn't done something, any game that does must be bad. That must be why there are so many game sequels and clones out there.

No. Just, its canon that weight and tons limit you. Example:

Overlord can hold 36 100 ton mechs, not 20 5,000,000 c-bill mechs

[Outlaw2]

DavidHurricane, on 01 May 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

Last post in this topic:
....

DavidHurricane, on 01 May 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

No. Just, its canon that weight and tons limit you. Example:

Overlord can hold 36 100 ton mechs, not 20 5,000,000 c-bill mechs

So...whats your point? If you want to talk about canon, "Battle Value" is something the tabletop also used.
However things like this shouldn't dictate game balance.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 01 May 2012 - 02:54 PM.

[Cobweb]

Assuming there are variations on weaponry, using tins is a bad idea, you run a tech level 1 reinforced lance vs. a tech lvl. 3 Level Two with C3i and let me know how you do with equal tonnage.

[Sprouticus]

Kudzu, on 14 April 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Actually, I think that it would be better to go in blind, as it will give generalist designs a reason to be taken. If you know exactly what you're dropping into every time it means you'll only see Infighters on map X, only snipers on map Y, ect. Part of the trade off for specializing in one aspect is that you are weak in other areas... And that weakness needs to be seen from time to time.

a good balance in the blind vs knowing the setup options might be to preselect your mech, but be able to change modules once you are in the game lobby.

My perfect game start process

1) Group up with any friends you are playing with
2) Select Role
3) Select mech & variant
4) Queue for match
.
.
.
time goes by
.
.
.
5) Everyone goes into the game lobby. 3-5 minute timer. Map, objectives, and conditions available.
6) Verify Roles everyone will have
7) plan basic tactics
8) select modules
9) Click Ready
10) Drop

you could I suppose only select a role when you queue up, and then select the mech when you get to the lobby (move step 3 after step 5). Assuming you could not modify the mechs in the lobby, it would encourage some generalization unless you purchase 5 of the same mech and have different load outs.

[Aegis Kleais]

You CANNOT force people to comply with a single player's consensus on a server. It. Will. Not. Happen.

People want to join a server, pick the Mech in their garage that they have, and play. They don't want to join a server, have to coordinate efforts with people they don't even know, and then be forced to use a chassis they either don't have or are not proficient in.

Your TT may use BV and/or tonnage to limit sides to what you feel is "fair", but I think usability is going to trump that.

If you join a match and THEN choose a Mech, it'll be free-will. You pick what you have and want to play.
If you pick a Mech and then are PUT into a match that the game deems is balanced, you won't be able to change the chassis, which is more restrictive, but might at least implement tonnage/BV based balancing to placate those concerned about it.

[Belisarius1]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 May 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

If you join a match and THEN choose a Mech, it'll be free-will. You pick what you have and want to play.
If you pick a Mech and then are PUT into a match that the game deems is balanced, you won't be able to change the chassis, which is more restrictive, but might at least implement tonnage/BV based balancing to placate those concerned about it.

You can do both, though. I would set it so players pick a 'mech and contract which suit the style they feel like playing. After matchmaking, they land in server with about a minute in which to reactively change things, if and only if they wish to. For that, you need some kind of team balance mechanism.

Let's assume tonnage is used, just because it makes it easier to work out. The team as it lands in lobby will have been arranged by the matchmaker so that it sits at the limit for the drop.

If, upon arriving in lobby, it becomes clear that there are three ravens and no fire support and I am in a rifleman, I may want to switch to a catapult. To do so, I need to find five tons somewhere. So I ask my teammates, and one of the ravens volunteers to take a javelin since three spotters is kind of overkill. And everyone is happy, because the team's composition is now more effective and the whole thing was voluntary.

That one dude who checked in with an atlas and doesn't want to drive anything else? That's cool, he's in lobby, he's been given 100 tons to his name and I can't take that away. He probably queued forever to get there. But the players who were willing to adjust themselves for the team had the ability to do so, and that's equally important.

Edited by Belisarius†, 01 May 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[StaIker]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 May 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

You CANNOT force people to comply with a single player's consensus on a server. It. Will. Not. Happen.

People want to join a server, pick the Mech in their garage that they have, and play. They don't want to join a server, have to coordinate efforts with people they don't even know, and then be forced to use a chassis they either don't have or are not proficient in.

I think this is generally correct. I know that most of the veteran MW4 players will just flat out ignore "commands" from someone they deem as inexperienced. I certainly will. I also expect the non-aligned players to ignore commands from everyone.

Quote

If you pick a Mech and then are PUT into a match that the game deems is balanced, you won't be able to change the chassis, which is more restrictive, but might at least implement tonnage/BV based balancing to placate those concerned about it.

I would be profoundly disappointed in MWO if that's how it turned out. Customisation would end up being essentially worthless and it would mean the devs had entirely missed the point of team play.

Quote

If, upon arriving in lobby, it becomes clear that there are three ravens and no fire support and I am in a rifleman, I may want to switch to a catapult. To do so, I need to find five tons somewhere. So I ask my teammates, and one of the ravens volunteers to switch to a javelin since three spotters is kind of overkill. And everyone is happy, because the team's composition is now more effective and the whole thing was completely voluntary.

If you personally know the player you are asking they might give up some tonnage for you. But strangers? No. Not even if it's the best thing they could do for the team.

Edited by StaIker, 01 May 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[Belisarius1]

I think you'd be surprised, Stalker. To slightly optimise the team's composition or just let me take a bigger 'mech because I want one? No, of course not. But in a situation where the matchmaker has dumped a completely useless composition, like three spotters, no indirect fire and an atlas? Any player smart enough to recognise how crazy it looks will be willing at least to negotiate.

Maybe the raven -> javelin guy would prefer to take a jenner rather than give me tonnage, but that's a conversation we're free to have. Plus, maybe he doesn't own a jenner.

Edited by Belisarius†, 01 May 2012 - 06:08 PM.

[StaIker]

Yes, I would be very surprised indeed. You assume that your team mates see the tactical situation in the same light and that further, they see the solution the same way you do. Their heads may well be filled with silly tactics that they think are just perfect for what they have, it doesn't matter that they are completely wrong. Everyone involved would have to already have a lot of experience to make reasonably good judgements about what is required, even the players in one league wouldn't agree on basic tactical principles let alone 1000's of them with no common experience. I'll grant that occasionally it could happen, but that to rely on it as a balance mechanism would be crazy. More often than not people will refuse to trade because their ideas trump a strangers every time.

[Belisarius1]

Obviously I'd prefer MW4's lobby system. However, I think it's pretty much a given that we will have to deal with matchmakers and contracts whether we like them or not.

In-lobby switching is an essential component of making that work without it being a complete random cluster. Even if you don't think coordination will happen very often, that's a billion times better than not letting it happen at all.

Edited by Belisarius†, 01 May 2012 - 06:32 PM.

[Mad Pig]

No limits. Equal Tonnage != Balance.

Bring what you got to the field and to the victors go the spoils. You want to go all assault and not have any recon and get pounded by artillery for 15 minutes while you trundle around at 51 kph then have fun paying the repair bills. You want to be smart and reap the rewards, then pay attention to the role warfare.

Seems simple enough to me. No drop limits required.

May your slop be golden.

[Kudzu]

Belisarius†, on 01 May 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Obviously I'd prefer MW4's lobby system. However, I think it's pretty much a given that we will have to deal with matchmakers and contracts whether we like them or not.

In-lobby switching is an essential component of making that work without it being a complete random cluster. Even if you don't think coordination will happen very often, that's a billion times better than not letting it happen at all.

Keep in mind that the other side is just as likely to be as screwed up as your in a pub game. A halfway decent matchmaker won't make the kind of mistakes you're worried about as long as role warfare plays out like it's supposed to. You might have to wait 30 seconds in a queue to get decent teams (lances make sense, both sides relatively even, etc) on both sides with whatever metrics they end up using, but I would take that in a heartbeat over instant-queue cluster of WOT's MM.